Same-sex marriage
The issue of gay marriage or the civil union of homosexuals is a topic a great debate in the United States. As more states, such as Massachusettes, grant civil unions and marriages to same-sex couples, opponents of these marriages have grown more outspoken. Earlier this year, Congress debated an amendment that would not allow states to grant marriages to homosexual couples. Gay Marriage Laws Around the World United States In the United States, the decision on whether to allow same-sex marriages has been left to the states. Currently, only Massachusetts allows same-sex marriages. Vermont and Connecticut allow Civil Unions, while Maine, New Jersey, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia have some spousal-like rights for same-sex couples. Canada Same-sex marriage is currently the law of the land in Canada, following decisions in cases brought before provincial courts, followed by a decision by the Supreme Court, followed by a bill passed in Parliament in 2005 under the government in power at the time. The short summary would be that all court decisions found that denying marriage to same-sex couples would violate rights guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court's decision invited the government to recognize this concretely with legislation. The bill subsequently did so. Religious concerns were raised during these events. Religious freedoms are protected under the Charter, and some religious groups object to same-sex marriage. These concerns were finessed by the assurance that no religious authority would be required to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony, if it did not wish to do so. Thus, any same-sex couple may get married, but they might not be able to have their marriage ceremony performed in certain places of worship. The newly-elected government has been promising to re-visit the same-sex marriage issue in Parliament sometime during the fall. Wikipedia has an excellent review at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada . United Kingdom Civil Partnerships Placeholder text, to be made more specific, describing the recently introduced institution of Civil Partnership which is open to two individuals of the same sex Switzerland In 2005, 58% of the Swiss people aproved the new law on registrated partnerships (Partnerschaftsgesetz) in a public vote that introduces marriage-like partnerships for same-sex couples. On January 1st, 2007, the law will come into effect. Marriage remains reserved for couples of different sex. The law brings the same rights and responsibilities as marriages, though there are some exceptions: * the family names of the partners remain unchanged, though, in practice, it is allowed to use the partners name instead or in addition even in legal transactions. * the couple is not allowed to adopt children The parlimentary web site on the topic (german and french only): http://www.parlament.ch/homepage/do-archiv/do-partnerschaft.htm Arguments In Favor of Gay Marriage Separation of Church and State Marriage is a legal issue. The state recognizes marriage as a legal partnership in which two individuals enter, and grants them certain rights and privileges that go beyond those which unmarried individuals have. For instance, in the case of the death of one partner in a marriage, even without a will the estate of the deceased is usually automatically willed to the living partner. The definition of Marriage as purely religious is incomplete. This denies the reality of entirely secular marriages performed by Justices of the Peace. It also denies the presence of the many legal benefits afforded to married couples which are denied to un-married ones. In some marriages, the only true religious involvement is the performance of a ceremony to indicate the marriage is recognized by a church. Marriage may have started as a purely religious agreement, but its current reality is much broader. Equality Over 1,100 rights and responsibilities are afforded to heterosexual couples through marriage. Simple rights such as hospital visitation and healthcare coverage are easily available to heterosexual couples through marriage, but unavailable for same-sex couples. Denying same-sex couples marriage essentially creates a group of second-class citizens without access to the same rights as heterosexual couples. Freedom and Individual Liberty The United States was founded on the principles of Freedom, and Personal Liberty. Allowing same-sex marriages would be extending upon gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered (GLBT) people the freedom to choose a life partner and be respected by the State. A same-sex marriage would not limit the freedom of heterosexual individuals, in any way. Limiting marriage to a heterosexual definition would be limiting the freedoms of a minority group of people. This is the classic example of the ‘tyranny of the majority’, which is the enemy of Democracy. Distorted View of GLBT People and Culture GLBT persons who participate in pride parades and other festivities are often considered to be representative for the entire GLBT community. This makes GLBT people seem extravagant and careless, characteristics which are difficult to unite with a serious marriage. It must be noted, however, many of GLBT people are not eager to express their sexuality. They consider it to be a personal issue. Such people could establish a very robust marriage and be very good at child rearing. These people do not fit a distorted view of GLBT people and are often not considered in debates. Dissent This type of discourse suggests individuals must fit into a standard of normalacy to have the freedom to marry, though this qualification does not currently apply to heterosexuals. It is not the ‘sameness’ of GLBT people that should entitle them to marry whomever they please, it is their citizenship and equality as human beings which can not and should not be negated through the participation in parades or celebration of identity and sexuality. The Fallacy of 'Protecting' Traditional Marriage A common tactic used by those opposed to equal rights for GLBT citizens is to claim that they are 'protecting' traditional marriage. Allowing same-sex marriage would in no way limit existing, or future, heterosexual marriages. Heterosexual marriages would be as legal as they are today. Allowing gay marriage would simply mean that more citizens would have access to the rights and protections that are currently only provided to heterosexual couples. Characteristic of this defense is an inability or an unwillingness to differentiate matrimony, the Christian sacrament of marriage, from legal marriage -- although a legal marriage certificate is necessary to complete a marriage in the Church, a religious ceremony is not required to accompany a certificate. The rights of heterosexual couples who choose to marry in a strictly legal context -- outside of any religious ceremony -- are protected by state and federal laws, weakening the logic of prohibiting homosexual couples to marry in this way. Sexual Orientation is Not a Choice Human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Numerous scientific studies have recently shown that sexual orientation is set as early as in the womb; there is evidence that biological birth order, prenatal hormones, and genetic predisposition influence sexual orientation. This evidence is also corroborated by studies of twins. The existence of bisexuality confuses some people into believing that all people have a choice, but this should not be universalized. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed. It is a fact of human psychology that, while a person can choose to act or not act on a desire (depending on competing desires), one cannot choose what one desires. If choice of desires were possible, then everyone could choose to desire what they already have, thereby fufilling those desires, although this still requires action to be based on the desire to see desires fufilled. Given the social stigma and risks of violence of being gay even today, unless one assumes or believe that same-sex attraction is appealing on some level, it is difficult to rationalize why one would choose to be gay if it really were a choice. Framing the Argument Many opponents of gay marriage like to describe the argument as a definitional one; they claim that the real issue is how we define the institution of marriage. This argument avoids the real question. As Jon Stewart put it in his debate with conservative Bill Bennett, "I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish." Counterpoint to Slippery Slope Argument Conservative opponents of homosexual marriages often make what is known as the slippery slope argument. They argue that if we allow gay marriages, then that is simply the first step towards allowing polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, and other sorts of unconventional sexual behaviors. This argument is flawed in many ways. First of all, same sex marriage is intrinsically different in nature from pedophilia, polygamy, and bestiality; polygamy is a choice and not a condition, pedophilia involves non adults and is a form of abuse (non consensual), and bestiality is not a union between two consenting parties. This argument is more of a scare tactic than a rational discourse. Besides, the slippery slope argument could go the other way; if we let the government decide who we can marry based on sexual orientation, then what’s to stop them from making income level or race qualifications for marriage? Counterpoint to Religious Imperative Argument Proper separation of church and state, as discussed above, would preclude this, as enforcing the moral code of one religion violates individuals' rights to choose their own religion (or to choose none). Counterpoint to Natural Order Argument Many species of animals, including mammals other than humans, have members that are homosexual and mate with members of their own sex. :"It is obvious that only that coupling is the one accepted by nature"? Your argument has a critical flaw... you suggest that it takes a man and a woman to create a child naturally, that is not being debated... however, you say that because there is this requirement of a man and woman to physically produce, homosexuality is not justified naturally as a way to raise the offspring outside of physical production.. Those are two different things. One deals with physical procreation, the other deals with parenting. If you look at the animal kingdom (humans included) there are instances of not only homosexual couples raising the young (quite successfully), but also multiple couples, and even communities all raising and acting as parents to the offspring that are produced. While much has been touted about findings that homosexuality is natural, there are studies that indicate different findings, such as the American Psychological Association's "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality" http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html. Dr. Paul Cameron, Chariman of the Family Research Institute, maintains it is a choice, and there are numerous documented cases of individuals choosing to change their sexual orientation. http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet5.html :Dr. Cameron received his PhD in psychology in 1966, but has since been ejected from the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association after he "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism." http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html That pamphlet bothers me when it emphasizes that "societies that accept homosexuality have more of it and those that disapprove of and punish it have considerably less of it". This is junk psychology. Societies that disapprove of homosexuality aren't going to have as high of a rate of reporting. And while the behavior may be diminished, the inclinations may remain, repressed in favor of heterosexual impulses, or even in favor of asexuality, even if there is emotional damage. Saying that only one is accepted by nature is incorrect. Many species display homosexual mating for life, the most notable example of which are penguinshttp://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp. As high as 15% of male penguins mate for life with another male penguin. These "gay" couples "adopt" and raise the abandoned eggs of other penguins. It seems, then, that nature needs homosexuality. What is "natural" and how is it even relevant? If by natural you mean that non-human animals do something, then there are many examples of homosexual behavior among animals.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-human_animal_sexuality#Homosexual_behavior Since it occurs in the natural world, then that makes it "natural." Being "natural" or "unnatural" does not make something good or bad. For example, Hemlock and viruses are natural, kidney transplants and scissors are unnatural. Arguing if homosexuality is not “natural” does not seem to prove very much. Can a "straight" person choose to be "gay?" No. The can choose to perform gay acts, but cannot intrincically change to be gay. The opposite is also true - gay people can "act" straight, but inside, they are still gay, as they were created. Arguments Against Gay Marriage Natural Order The intrinsically heterosexual nature of mammalian procreation suggests homosexuality is indeed aberrant. As only sex between a man and woman can produce offspring, it is obvious that only that coupling is one accepted by nature. Slippery Slope When discussing the sexual orientation of people, there are myriad possibilities. People can not only be heterosexual or homosexual, but also be polygamous, pedophiliac or zoophilic for example. Modern psychologists agree that this is also not by choice and definitely not voluntarily changeable. Promoting gay marriage simply because it is not a voluntary choice to be gay would also mean promoting (consensual?) relations between adults and children by the same argument. The involuntariness of homosexuality per se can therefore not be a valid argument and other societal factors have to be taken into account. Religious Imperative The need or otherwise of aligning secular law with the moral code of a majority religion. First and foremost, all religion aside, secular law should always be aligned with the majority, moral codes or no moral codes. This is both the purpose and spirit of democracy. Secondly, (the vast majority of, if not all) gay marriage supporters are not in any way suggesting people cannot live whatever lifestyle(s) they choose. They are merely stating that such behavior cannot and should not be condoned in what is, like it or not, a religious institution. Gay marriage supporters, on the other hand, are suggesting that homosexuals are entitled to protections by a religious institution, and (more often than not) claiming that anything otherwise would be intolerant. However, this is a weak argument at best and a hypocritical one at worst. Gays wishing a legally-binding institution are free to pursue one--just leave ours alone. Counterpoint to Freedom and Individual Liberty Argument While many pro-gay marriage advocates claim that marriage is a freedom, marriage is actually a State and/or society issue, not a personal or individual issue. People have the right to do anything they want, but "marriage" would not exist without the State or society, therefore you can't say that the State/society take a freedom from the citizens since that's not a "freedom" from the beginning, it's a State/society sponsored institution. The issue here is discrimination, not freedom, but that's a different discussion. Counterpoint to Framing the Argument Many proponents of gay marriage claim the true issue is whether or not homosexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. I believe this to be a red herring--the only real issue is the definition of marriage. While ones belief regarding the status of homosexuals can--and oftentimes does--influence ones stance, it has no real bearing on the true issue at hand--whether marriage is an exclusive union between males and females or a more general bonding between two individuals. Arguments Against Marriage * Discriminates against gay and single people by giving tax breaks to married people and additional rights. * The State should not get involved into the life of people especially when it's related to sexual practices and personal choices. Government Policy Options States Rights The Constitution nowhere grants the Federal government the power to regulate marriage, so with no amendment whatsoever it is already possible for individual states to do what they want about gay marriage. People who feel threatened by gay marriage are free to live in a state that does not allow it, and people who want it are free to live in a state that allows it. Remove Special Marriage Benefits (civil unions only?) A third possibility supported by a smaller group is the removal of marriage benefits from the law altogether, or rather placing them entirely under the purview of contract law. Marriage would be left as a religious or personal contractual bond between whichever people choose to recognize it, but there would be no state or federal recognition of marriage. Giving of power of attorney and whatever contracts that marriage currently implies could be entered into explicitly by any two people (as they are now). :Note: this is pretty much the same as a civil union. --Kg6cvv 21:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC) This is probably not a practical option considering the widespread respect and influence that marriage has in our culture, but it may be useful to include in discussion to remember that conferring legal status to marriage is far from inevitable. Our society has decided that we want marriage to have legal status, so we also have to decide how to handle that so as not to confer unfair advantage to certain people. :Are you saying that "our society" cannot change its mind? Isn't that what the political process is all about? And movies have a huge cultural influence as well. Should the government be making movies? --Kg6cvv 21:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC) If someone wants to make a point for gay marriage they have to: # make a point why there's a need for "marriage" in general # prove that that need holds if we extend the "marriage" meaning to gay relationships. ---- C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity discusses marriage, and his argument - which I agree with so am (poorly) reproducing here - is that there should be a distinction made between civil marriages and religious marriages. With high divorce rate as a primary indicator, marriages as implemented by the government today are, in fact, civil marriages. We do not - and can be argued never have - held people to the oath of "till death do us part". In this sense, the religious side is just for show. Lewis asks for a large distinction to be made between religious marriages, specifically Christian, and civil ones. He sees no reason that civil marriages are held up to a Christian standard, and by making this distinction we can not only more effectively separate church and state, but also clarify exactly our intentions when getting married. --Bubaflub 10:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC) A first step in differentiating the two (civil vs. religious marriages) would be naming. Civil marriages could simply be called "civil unions," providing all the legal benefits of marriage, without any religious connotations. --Midian 16:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Marriage only has "religious connotations" to those who are religious. My marriage was performed by a judge and has no "religious connotations." The whole question of gay marriage is a legal issue. As has repeatedly been stated here, "marriage" is a legal term. In fact, it's a key term in hundreds of legal opinions and statutes. Unless you intend to rewrite the last 200 years of American common law, and hundreds of state and federal statutes, it is impractical to think that simply creating a new term "civil union" can fully embrace the legal rights created by the term "marriage." --Dan robinson 20:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Civil Unions due to Interstate Commerce Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Unites States Constitution states that Congress has the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Marriage is a legally recognized union. Given the nature of the accumulation of assets in today's society, there is a clear imperative to establish a universal definition of marriage. Couples who are married in a state that recognizes same sex marriages, but hold assets in one's that do not, would face legal difficulties that were intended to be mitigated by the above clause. Civil Unions between individuals is the only logical step. This would provide adequate protection for heterosexual, homosexual, and platonic couples. Rights By State New York In a 4-2 decision, the New York Court of Appeals said that the state's marriage law is constitutional, and clearly limits marriage to a union between a man and a woman. Judge Robert Smith said, "Any change in the law would have to come from the state Legislature." Party Platforms United States Democrats We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush's divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a "Federal Marriage Amendment." Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart. Source: Democratic Party Platform for America, 2004, p. 42 Libertarians From the National Libertarian Party Web Sitehttp://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#sexurigh: The Issue: Government has presumed to decide acceptability over sexual practices in personal relationships, imposing a particular code of moral and social values and displacing personal choice in such matters. The Principle: Adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity. Solutions: We advocate an end to all government attempts to dictate, prohibit, control or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship. Transitional Action: We would repeal existing laws and policies intended to condemn, affirm, encourage or deny sexual lifestyles, or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles. Republicans We strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage. Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform: A Safer World and a More Hopeful America, p. 83 GTL Party From the God, Truth and Love Party Web Sitehttp://www.gtlparty.org In Truth: People can and do fall in love with members of the same sex. Through Love: They are happy and their situation has no detrimental effect on others. They should be allowed to do as they please. Initiative: Legalize gay marriage while guaranteeing religious institutions that they will not have to perform or recognize such marriages. Homosexuality has always existed. It is part of the human condition and has been documented in several species in the animal kingdom. Gays and lesbians experience the range of human emotions as heterosexuals do. They fall in love and wish to express that love through making a lasting commitment. That expression of love and wish to exhibit and celebrate it is no less valid because of their sexual orientation. Same sex couples have suffered many trials and tribulations over the years. Acts of hate and violence against them, overt and covert prejudice, the denial of marital rights, the loss of inheritance from same sex partners, the lack of access to health and other employment benefits normally shared by spouses, and the acceptance by family, friends, and the greater community are all detrimentally affected by the continued denial of equal marriage rights for same sex couples. The United States, formerly a leader in human rights, is lagging behind the world in gay and lesbian rights. The Netherlands, Canada and Spain have all granted marriage rights to same sex couples. Several other countries in Europe are currently studying the matter and are moving swiftly towards the full recognition that sexual orientation between two people who wish to marry should not be a matter that the state can dictate. Perspectives (Share your feedback about this section's format/content on the discussion page!) As a way of starting a deeper conversation around Gay marriage, please post your "Perspective" below. This will give us a clear structure for looking at all the diverse and interesting perspectives we all hold. Each Perspective should be formatted as follows: "I am _______, and I believe _______." EXAMPLE: "I am a gay man, and I believe we should have the right to marry." EXAMPLE: "I am a businessman, and I believe that gay marriage is a source of new money for the economy." EXAMPLE: "I am a Republican, and I think marriage should be between a man and a woman." Let's keep this civil, thoughtful and friendly... and have fun! What's YOUR perspective? Remember to "sign" your comment with four tildes *I'm a 28-year old gay man, and I believe that the rights equated with marriage should be available to all people, so that marriage is just a religious or personal commitment, and the government does not need to be involved at all. :: * I am a heterosexual secular man, and I believe the government should not discriminate in marriages on the basis of gender but should instead endorse long-term social contracts between two people. :: * I am an 18 year old Christian, and I believe that the Biblical definition should stand- that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. :: * I am a 19 year old Christian male, and I believe that it is wrong for the government to make decisions based on any religous organizaton. Thus, I believe that gay marriage should be left up to the people of each state. Personally, I see nothing wrong with gay marriage, and I honestly do not see how gay marriage will "erode our christian values" any more than war and bloodshed will. :: * I am a 32 year old married straight agnostic man and I agree 100% with the first two perspectives. In answer to the one about the Biblical definition, I think the Bible stands on its own and does not need the government to endorse or not endorse it. Government should stay out of marriage entirely and the word should be stricken from all government laws. --Kg6cvv 21:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :: * I am a 19 year old heterosexual Christian college student, and I believe that we should not discriminate against homosexuals. There should be a gay marriage ammendment to the Constitution that makes it universally LEGAL. :: * I am a 20 year old Christian male living in Kansas, and I don't believe in preventing people from getting married by the state, as I see state marriage and religious marriage differently. The state is not a christian theocracy, and the concept of marriage should be handled in a secular manner. The church shouldn't be forced to acknowledge all state marriages as valid to their faith, however (but the church can't invalidate a state marriage). The state should stay out of the church's business, and vice versa. One cannot force everyone to do things his or her way. I see my view as a good comprimise, and i'm hoping others will too. --Anphanax 21:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :: * I am a 23 year old Christian gay man. I find the importance of marriage being in the eyes of God and your peers not our Leaders. :: *I am a 17 year old male Christian high school student, and I believe that homosexual marriage has no lasting purpose because most committed homosexual relationships last less than 3 years. :: *I am a rational human, and I think that even if homosexual relationships had a higher failure rate it might be due to the intense prejudice against the homosexuals from society and not on their inability to be committed. :: * I am a person. I don't believe in publishing private info online. I also don't believe it's State business to interfere in private lives, marriage is an archaic institution, it should be abolished completely. If people want to swear eternal faith and bliss to each other is only their own business. -- Blackdog 21:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :: * I am a 20 year old male college student, and I believe that the point here is not trying to classify what the word "marriage" means, since this will just show a single person's opinion. "Gay Marriage" cannot be put to the term just as simple as looking at same sex people marrying. It's a simple matter of equal rights. -- Quetzalcoatl 22:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :: * I am a male American, and I believe that statistics should be left out of this (for both sides), as there are few ways to verify them, and most statistics are twisted, anyway. Futhurmore, I believe that gay marriage should be left completely up to religious organizations and not up to the government at all, and that the government should only be able to grant civil unions, which give any number of people legal rights regarding other members of the same group. This way, no one's religious beliefs should be offended, and any people who trust each other enough to give them rights over their own life can give these rights freely. -- Kimastergeorge 23:00, 6 July 2006 :: * I am a 15 year old gay male, and my worst fear in life is that I will die alone, with no one to grow old with. :: * I am a Libertarian. It is time for the government to stop abusing the word marriage. If we must recognize two people making a commitment to each other, then call it a civil union, or something else. The state has co-opted a religious rite, and the religious, including myself should be more offended. :: *I am a heterosexual male and I believe that it is not a big deal. I dont understand how homosexual marriage will hurt america. Gays are people too... :: *I am a 32 year old gay male, and I'd love nothing more than to be able to marry my boyfrield who I love very deeply. I wish the government would just mind their own business - what gives them the right to tell me who I can fall in love with? :: * I am a 18 year old hetero white male, with a Christian upbringing. I see no reason why a goverment, or people should infringe on the lives of others. In a nation such as the US, which prides itself in freedoms, freedom to love and marry who ever you wish should stood for. Religion and old tradition should not define all laws. Tom 360 02:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC) :: * I am a 16 year old heterosexual male. I do not subscribe to the agenda of any party. I believe GLBT people should be afforded the same protection and privileges under the law as straight people, including marriage. Marriage in the legal context is not in any way a religious issue. Religion has no place in the laws of the United States. Gay marriage is an issue as to whether gay people should be given the same privileges under the law as straight people, and the Charters of Freedom are quite clear on the idea that every human being is entitled to the same protections and privileges. Discussion *According to some of the leading GLBT rights groups and human rights groups I have talked to, the issue is not "gay" marriage versus "straight" marriage. What they are trying to gain is equal marriage. The goal is to make loving, monogamous marriage accessible to all consenting adults. Now, they argue, we have a system that is deliberately denying equality to GLBT people. -- Tumblingwall 22:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC) : Even if this get "corrected" I feel like single people are discriminated against. Why only married people (gay or straight) should get tax cuts, what did they do to deserve that? Why should they have some facilities in adoptions? What about the rest of benefits? *Category:Civil rights